If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't attach much significance to what groups did in the past or what the fringe of groups do in the present. It doesn't bother me that the 'Democratic party' voted against the 13th amendment, since the current party would be nearly unrecognizable compared to the party in Lincoln's day. I don't blame Islam for fundamentalists, nor Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church. And I don't believe the GOP is waging war on women because of Todd Akin's remarks.

Actually, the Democrats wouldn't be as unrecognizable as you think. The last serving KKK member in the senate was Robert Byrd (D-WV), and until he died, the current crop of Democrats treated him as if he was a national treasure and not a bigoted loon who cheerfully used the N-word in public and filibustered against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. For an example of the current racism of the party, just look at the treatment given to conservative blacks, such as Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Colin Powell (before he went back to the liberal plantation), Herman Cain, Michael Steele, Alan West or Herman Cain. While you're at it, they also overlook antisemitism and viciously bigoted comments directed towards Asians, as long as the comments originate among Democrats. They party also maintains its power through the manipulation of voting blocks through urban machines, something Lincoln would have recognized from his era. The only real difference is that the Tammany Hall bosses now style themselves as community organizers.

Your comment on Islam seems based on wishful thinking, since violent jihad is a basic function of Islam. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

I don't attach much significance to the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', 'communist', either. There are about as many definitions for these as there are individuals discussing them, and there are about as many ways to execute these ideologies in practice as there are groups practicing them. While they are convenient words to use as a starting point in a conversation, I don't think in-depth knowledge of their history or philosophical discussions about their meanings are a prerequisite to having thoughtful opinions on the issues of the day.

As Santayana said, those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The understanding of the roots of the ideology that you claim to believe in will show you the intent of those who established it, and possibly give you something to think about the next time you advocate for them. Finally, if you don't attach much significance to the term "liberal," why call yourself one? Words have meaning, and if you pretend that they don't, then there is no thoughtful discussion possible, since words are the tools by which we have such discussions, and your presence here becomes simply self-indulgence on your part.

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

I always wonder why I see so many arguments about whether the Nazis were more 'liberal' or 'conservative'. To me, it's pretty clear that practically no Americans want to turn our country into 1930s-40s Germany.

No, but many of them want to turn us into 1930s America, or 1970s Russia. The commonalities between Nazism, fascism, Progressivism, socialism and communism and the New Deal would be troubling to you if you bothered to look at them, but by not looking, you can blithely pretend that "labels don't matter" or some such variation of the theme, and evade responsibility for what you claim to believe. The fact is that labels do matter, which is why I asked you how you defined your liberalism vs. the other ideologies mentioned. If you haven't examined these, how would you know whether you are a liberal, a socialist, or even a Nazi, since you couldn't tell me the difference between them? Now do you understand why it matters, and why you need to be able to explain yourself?

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

Edit: As a note - responses may be a little slower from here on out. The holiday and work will limit my time to check this thread. Happy Easter, everyone

Edit 2: Not sure what the double-posting rules are here, so I'll add something to this post.

Is this genuinely how you view me? Because I really don't think I'm anything special in terms of knowing more about these things than friends of mine with similar views.

Well, I assumed that it was your response, but that it was sarcastic. If your friends feel the same way that you do, then are you here to defend their ideas, or are you here to test them? Are you a liberal because they say that you are, and you don't want to rock the boat (in which case, you're not so much a liberal as a member of a clique, and your understanding of the ideas of that clique are as shallow as the high school cheerleader who sees school spirit as a unifying ideal, even as she ignores the uncool kids from her school). If you can't tell the difference between what you believe and what a doctrinaire Marxist believes, then why should you expect us to know what sets you apart?

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

And I'm sure a number of them could do a better job than me of answering these questions (particularly Odysseus')

Yes, but you don't want me defining you, do you? After all, this is your thread, and you're the one who challenged us to ask you anything. My question, which you still haven't answered, is why do you call yourself a liberal, as opposed to any of the other leftist tags available?

Given the high state of histrionics in Congress, and the Failure's ideals of "reasonable gun control", where do you stand on this?

Do you think this current idea of another assault weps ban will actually achieve anything?

Do you believe that the Founders were specific in that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Given that the last shooting was by a lunatic who a/ should never have had access to guns b/ murdered his mother to get them c/ was not a legal or licensed gun owner d./ committed yet another massacre in a so-called gun free zone and e/ as a result has Congress screaming for more "controls" when the elephant in the room is standing there, trunk swinging, with the words "Gun Free Zone" arouind his neck?

Where do you stand with the fact that every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone, including that jihadi Hassan who carried out his shooting on an Army base where..wait for it..wait for it..possession of use of firearms on the base was strictly prohibited? (And screamiong Allahu Akhbar as he did it?)

Do you believe that gun control will stop these massacres? Do you believe that gun control works?

How do you handle the fact that suicide is considered a gun crime, and that more than 98% of all gun crimes are committed with illegal guns?

How do you answer this cry for more gun control, based on the massacre in Belgium, whose nation enacted a total gun ban? Bear in mind the guy who did it was a three times convicted felon who got his hands on hand grenades and automatic weapons, despite all the laws that said he should never have been able to? (fat lot that did them, now, didnt it)

Do you think that any amount of "gun laws" will slow down or stop the possession and use of illegally obtained weapons?

I will caution you in all fairness that this question has a serious sting in its tail, so I do advise you to think and then reply.

Given the high state of histrionics in Congress, and the Failure's ideals of "reasonable gun control", where do you stand on this?

Do you think this current idea of another assault weps ban will actually achieve anything?

Do you believe that the Founders were specific in that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Given that the last shooting was by a lunatic who a/ should never have had access to guns b/ murdered his mother to get them c/ was not a legal or licensed gun owner d./ committed yet another massacre in a so-called gun free zone and e/ as a result has Congress screaming for more "controls" when the elephant in the room is standing there, trunk swinging, with the words "Gun Free Zone" arouind his neck?

Where do you stand with the fact that every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone, including that jihadi Hassan who carried out his shooting on an Army base where..wait for it..wait for it..possession of use of firearms on the base was strictly prohibited? (And screamiong Allahu Akhbar as he did it?)

Do you believe that gun control will stop these massacres? Do you believe that gun control works?

How do you handle the fact that suicide is considered a gun crime, and that more than 98% of all gun crimes are committed with illegal guns?

How do you answer this cry for more gun control, based on the massacre in Belgium, whose nation enacted a total gun ban? Bear in mind the guy who did it was a three times convicted felon who got his hands on hand grenades and automatic weapons, despite all the laws that said he should never have been able to? (fat lot that did them, now, didnt it)

Do you think that any amount of "gun laws" will slow down or stop the possession and use of illegally obtained weapons?

I will caution you in all fairness that this question has a serious sting in its tail, so I do advise you to think and then reply.

I hope for a serious and reasoned response.

Wow ... Let me add that the last SEVEN massacres were committed by LIBERALS!